Inverse Problems in Geodynamics Using Machine Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the past few decades numerical studies have been widely employed to explore the style of circulation and mixing in the mantle of Earth and other planets. However, in geodynamical studies there are many properties from mineral physics, geochemistry, and petrology in these numerical models. Machine learning, as a computational statistic‐related technique and a subfield of artificial intelligence, has rapidly emerged recently in many fields of sciences and engineering. We focus here on the application of supervised machine learning (SML) algorithms in predictions of mantle flow processes. Specifically, we emphasize on estimating mantle properties by employing machine learning techniques in solving an inverse problem. Using snapshots of numerical convection models as training samples, we enable machine learning models to determine the magnitude of the spin transition‐induced density anomalies that can cause flow stagnation at midmantle depths. Employing support vector machine algorithms, we show that SML techniques can successfully predict the magnitude of mantle density anomalies and can also be used in characterizing mantle flow patterns. The technique can be extended to more complex geodynamic problems in mantle dynamics by employing deep learning algorithms for putting constraints on properties such as viscosity, elastic parameters, and the nature of thermal and chemical anomalies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".